Burden of proof

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you accept extortion or perhaps blackmail?

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that rights are a social construct, but if it is true that so many people believe that government is just and necessary, then why not make taxes voluntary? More specifically, why doesn't it follow that people should be able to voluntarily pay for things like roads, protection, legal services, and anything else that people demand of government? If the demand is so high as you assert, then why can these things not be provided in the absence of coercion?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Nothing exists except atoms.

There is no such thing as "a rock," or a "puppy," or "forests." All these terms for atomic aggregations are merely conceptual labels for atoms. "The universe" never does anything – only atoms within the universe act. Thus the "universe" – since it is a concept – has no reality. Physical rules apply to atoms, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual atoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You have missed the point, sir. Atoms actually have more in common with human aggregations than with actual individuals in a society given the context of this debate.

(Hint: The issue at hand is choice, more specifically, the ability to make decisions.)

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the <font color="red">consent</font> of the governed

[/ QUOTE ]

[superleeds]

All your premises are flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Nothing exists except people.

There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government, a country and a society are labels for a collection of individuals. They are not concepts, they are real evolving organisms just like families.

As for 2 and 3 the world is not black and white no matter how much you would like it to be and most of it's problems stem from people thinking as you do.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the <font color="red">consent</font> of the governed

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Point is?? I consent [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[benfranklin]

Oh boy! The Sophomore Class 420 Debating Society is back on the air. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (I think this epsiode is a rerun. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments exist, they do things, and they have rights. None of these concepts apply to government in the same sense in which they apply to individuals, but they do apply.

A government does not make moral decisions per se, but it is a machine build to carry out the moral decisions of its citizens. If the machine is not programmed correctly, the government acts in ways that produce unintended consequences. Thus, a government does act (produce results) without, and sometimes contrary to, human decisions. This is the result of human error, not human immorality.

A family is a relationship which can be manifested through results other than would be produced by the individual members. Intangible things exist. Abstract thinking is the sign of advanced intelligence. Try it sometime.


[ QUOTE ]
What is good for one must be good for all.

What is bad for one must be bad for all.



[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[/ QUOTE ]

You are playing word games.

1. Theft is wrong
2. Taxation is theft
3. Therefore taxation is wrong

The second statement violates conventional English usage. You define taxation as theft, most people do not. If we accept your definition of theft, then you are correct. If we accept the English language definition of theft, the discussion makes no sense.

Some people would define some of the following as murder, others would not: slaughtering a cow for food, abortion, capital punishment, murder for hire, government assassination of enemies or terrorists, assisted suicide, etc. Again, any individual's definition is irrelevant.

Your AC word games lack consistency. You say that there is no such thing as "society", but insist that proper behaviour is based on social norms. There is a logic gap here. Do you see why?

In this society, taxation is not theft purely by definition (although some taxes may amount to theft), and abortion is not murder. You may wish it otherwise, and may labor to change that. But those are the social norms. You can't define them away.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Individuals in Governments exist, they do things, and they have rights. None of these concepts apply to government in the same sense in which they apply to individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few changes need to be made. If individuals do not act, then government does not act. It's as simple as that.


[ QUOTE ]
Your AC word games lack consistency. You say that there is no such thing as "society", but insist that proper behaviour is based on social norms. There is a logic gap here. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure that Neilso is arguing from the perspective of objective rights, thus his view on morality has nothing to do with social norms.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, a government does act (produce results) without, and sometimes contrary to, human decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that once you read this sentence you will agree that it makes no sense. Intangible things exist, but they cannot act.




Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything else that you said. I have a few questions though:

Do you believe that these social norms are rooted in logic, the propagation of various ideologies, or some unexplainable intrinsic force (like insticts)? Does this even matter to you?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You are playing word games.

1. Theft is wrong
2. Taxation is theft
3. Therefore taxation is wrong

The second statement violates conventional English usage. You define taxation as theft, most people do not. If we accept your definition of theft, then you are correct. If we accept the English language definition of theft, the discussion makes no sense.

Some people would define some of the following as murder, others would not: slaughtering a cow for food, abortion, capital punishment, murder for hire, government assassination of enemies or terrorists, assisted suicide, etc. Again, any individual's definition is irrelevant.

Your AC word games lack consistency. You say that there is no such thing as "society", but insist that proper behaviour is based on social norms. There is a logic gap here. Do you see why?

In this society, taxation is not theft purely by definition (although some taxes may amount to theft), and abortion is not murder. You may wish it otherwise, and may labor to change that. But those are the social norms. You can't define them away.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'll read my response in this thread, I answer this objection. The problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that there can never be inconsistent usages of words, which seems false. The definition of theft is certainly dependent in general upon how we use the word, but specific usages of the word may be inconsistent with the definition.
The fact that most people's usage of theft does not include taxation is mostly irrelevant. The commonsensical meaning behind theft (the one that we use), if consistently applied to the scenario of taxation, shows that, yes, taxation is theft.

As for the part about AC inconsistency, I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by there not being any 'scoiety'. All that is meant iis that only individuals act--the word 'society' denotes a collection of actually existing individuals. This has no bearing on whether or not there are social norms (social norms being patterns of activity and interaction between the individuals that compose a given society).

[Hofzinser]

The fact that most people's usage of theft does not include taxation is mostly irrelevant. The commonsensical meaning behind theft (the one that we use), if consistently applied to the scenario of taxation, shows that, yes, taxation is theft.

Theft, I hope we can all agree, means something like "taking something that is someone else's against their will and without their permission".

However, the government has a mandate to take this money, and gets permission to do so, because at every election people almost invariably vote for parties that propose some form of taxation, to varying degrees. You may not like living in a democracy where what the majority wants goes for everyone (which is fine) but the fact is that that's what heppens in democracies. To paint taxation as theft because it's convenient to your world view won't do. The burden is on you to show why it is theft.

Also, who exactly is doing the stealing? It's not any one individual, surely - and if an individual politician does appropriate money for himself and use it for his own ends then this is indeed theft and he will be prosecuted for it. But no individual has sole, unchecked power to take any amount of money from another citizen and spend it how he or she pleases. I can't make any sense out of the theft claim at all unless we say that it is the government that is supposedly doing the thieving. However, apparently there is no such thing as 'the government' as an entity in itself.

With regard to other bits of the opening post:

Here are the three principles that they at the very minimum have to abide to:

Really? Why is that then? Just because you say so? I think some justification is needed for this.

There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people.

There is no such thing as a 'lasagne' or 'spaghetti bolognese'. All these terms for italian dishes are merely conceptual labels for individual ingredients. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "lasagne" without showing you any individual ingerdients.

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone.

Many people would say that moral beliefs are exactly that: statements of opinion. If you want to assert the existence of universal moral facts, you need to provide some good reasons for doing so.

If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless.

What does this mean? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Mammals are warm-blooded, and can therefore be classified thus. But why must all warm-blooded organisms be included, and why is the concept meaningless if you don't do so? You do know that birds are warm-blooded too, right? And also that birds are not mammals?

If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football

Maybe that's exactly what it is. And if so, you can't wish it away by dreaming up 'moral absolutes'.

Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral.

Why on earth not? There are many hidden and unsubstanitated assumptions behind this rather wild statement, regarding quite profound philosophical questions - questions which you give no evidence of having thought about or grasped.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that most people's usage of theft does not include taxation is mostly irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the contrary. It is very relevant in a democratic republic.


[ QUOTE ]


The commonsensical meaning behind theft (the one that we use), if consistently applied to the scenario of taxation, shows that, yes, taxation is theft.



[/ QUOTE ]

More word games. The common meaning of theft is to take someone's property without right or permission. You say that the government does not have the right to collect taxes, and that doing so is therefore theft. The majority of people believe that the government has that right. Historically, the people, directly or through their elected representatives, gave that right to the government. It is one of the founding principles of this country. (Remember "no taxation without representation"? It was in all the papers at the time.)

Your definition of taxation as theft certainly applies in many places, but the US in not one of them. The historic record on the right of the government to tax, with the consent and representation of the people, is clear.

Once the government has that right, no individual under that government has the right to withdraw consent to be taxed. The right was given by the majority, and only the majority can withdraw that right.

Trying to redefine taxation as theft only hurts the credibility of those who argue the position. You can't be taxed without your explicit concent? The concept sounds good to a bunch of college kids in a late-night dorm-room BS session, but the adults know better.